THE DILEMMA: Cultural Heritage Icon or Tasmaniana

CLICK ON THE IMAGE FOR MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THIS NECKLACE

THE DILEMMA: If this necklace's value depends upon its Aboriginal authenticity its authenticity needs to be established. If that is not possible – as it seems it may not be for a variety reason – there may be a problem if the circumstantial evidence is ambiguous – here it seems to be. The collector here seems to have defaulted to 'the wisdom of the time (1984)' and arguably with relatively good reason to do so. Indeed, he says he "bought these in the Eighties from Lawsons Auctions Sydney or from an old collection." So it seems that this necklace was by-and-large 'collected' for inherent qualities rather than its provenance.

In line with the conventions of the time it seems it was assumed that this necklace was as it appeared to be. In the absence of contradictory information that seems a reasonable assumption. Albeit that it would be quite possibly an unsafe assumption if 'value' depends upon the necklace's Aboriginality or its exotic otherness or even its 'Tasmanianness' – even if in the latter case there is still no evidence to suggest otherwise.

However, if new information comes to light that might question the balance of probability in regard to the circumstantial evidence, then arguably there has been a paradigm shift and the inquiry is in new territory. The 'John Ward Hobart Necklace Robbery [Trial 1908]' seems to change the circumstantial evidence. Given the number of dealers that may now be identified as a result of the digitisation of colonial newspapers (19th & 20th C) it now seems that:

1. Shell necklaces of the kind illustrated here were being made in relatively small numbers by Tasmanian Aboriginal women for cultural purposes and sometimes to be sold to generate supplementary income – it seems mostly on the Furneaux Islands – and continue to be made by them in various place around Tasmania;
   
2. Shell necklaces of the kind illustrated here were being produced commercially, and in large numbers, by non-Aboriginal makers;
3. These shell necklaces – 'Hobart Necklaces' – were being sold throughout Tasmania and being exported in large numbers to mainland Australia as well as abroad – notably Hawaii;
4. The trade in commercially mass produced 'Hobart Necklaces' seems to have been reasonably lucrative and going on possibly as early as 1860, 1875 certainly, 1875 to WW1 and possibly intermittently between WW1 & WW2 and again post WW2 and possibly into the 1960s.

This information in no way discounts the production of shell necklaces – 'maireeners' – that has been a continuous and evolving cultural practice carried on up until the present by Tasmanian Aboriginal people.

The are two distinct activities going on – one Aboriginal and the other non-Aboriginal – and the relationship between the two is yet to be fully explored.

Nonetheless, the ways these necklaces are marketed in the Aboriginal art and antique markets is an issue. It is clear that the Aboriginal status adds value to these necklaces. This has been recently reinforced in Tasmania by the National Trust nominating "the shell necklaces made by Tasmanian Aboriginal women" as Cultural Heritage Icons. Indeed this can be taken as wider community acknowledgement that a necklace's Aboriginal status does in fact add value to it – its Aboriginal cultural cargo is of interest and in turn this lend value to it.

Historically, the context in which Aboriginal status does add value needs to explored in more depth. There is no longer all that much conjecture about the authenticity of the contemporary necklaces– 'maireeners' –made by Tasmanian Aboriginal women. Rather, any diffidence and doubt seems to be bound up in the complex, and somewhat uncomfortable, histories played out in Tasmania in respect to Tasmania's Aboriginal people – and the ongoing social and cultural tensions that come with all that.

Museums in Tasmania have had a particularly uncomfortable relationship with the Tasmanian Aboriginal community. While more productive discourses have begun in the past decade or so the tensions are still evident.

Museums are contentious places. In Tasmania when it comes to negotiating Tasmanianness and authenticity in a museum contentiousness is never far away.

Cultural material exhibited in museums claim authority from the place they are located –Tasmania– and the sanctioned status of the 'official' institution. Authenticity is bestowed (deemed?) upon objects presented in museums that in turn relies upon the authenticating powers of the museum. These authenticated objects are a reflection of some curatorial imperative, which in turn depends upon current wisdom. Even though it might be challenged, and sometimes vehemently, the exhibit wears the cloak of authenticity.

The treatment of Aboriginal people in Tasmania and their culture within Tasmania's museums represent the Aboriginal people variously. Just how they are presented is somewhat dependent upon prevailing political imperatives – and at the more comfortable end of historic conjuncture.

Typically, Tasmanian museum exhibits told their intended audience more about the tensions between the essentially Eurocentric imperatives in stories with Aboriginal issues than anything else. Rather than Aboriginal visions of place – Tasmania – or the Aboriginal people, or their cultural realities, typically 'colonial' perspectives have been privileged – to some extent it remains so.

Given all this it aught not be assumed that the ambiguity now attaching itself to some shell necklaces is something that can go unacknowledged. Neither is it something that is unlikely to be tested. Thus, if Aboriginality is important, and it usually is, the provenance of the piece is very important. If what is important is the necklace's Tasmanianness, then provenance is less important as both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal necklaces are quintessential exemplars of Tasmaniana with its colonial subtexts.

It is an open question as to the authenticity of this necklace as Tasmanian Cultural Heritage Icon and possibly even its 'Tasmaniana' status given that the shells can be collected in Victorian and South Australian waters – and possibly further afield as well.

Shell Necklaces – Theft & Cultural Appropriation

This story in the Hobart Mercury in 1908 is unlikely in one sense yet it brings a rather unexpected dimension to the Hobart Necklace story in another. The first thing about the case that seems a little surprising is the number shell necklaces involved – "more than 100 dozen". By itself this is an indication of the potential size of the commercial shell necklace 'industry' that seems was operating out of Hobart in the late 19th Century, early 20th Century. At the time Tasmania's population was something less than 200,000 people and Hobart's population was less than 40,000. While it seems that M M Martin of Cascade Rd. Hobart & Honolulu were running a substantial enterprise exporting necklaces from Tasmania to "Australasia" and abroad – Honolulu at least. This Supreme Court Case seems to suggest that apart from the Martin enterprise there may well have been two additional operations capable of producing a similar number of necklaces – . Earnest Mawle's report of 1918 implies that there was an industry operating in the Hobart region and his report needed to have been informed by a member(s?) of 'the industry'.

The court case identifies the owner (exporter?) of shell necklaces as "Paget" and there is a reference to "Fisher of Reserche" which suggests that the Martin enterprise had competition. In any event the size of the robbery alone gives some indication of the size of the industry. After that Mawle's report gives the impression that shell necklace making was acknowledged as an industry of a kind albeit that its scale is somewhat hard to estimate.

The estimated value of the "100 dozen shell necklaces stolen" (£71/-/- seventy one pounds) provides some additional clues – approx. £0/1/2 each. This would seem to be wholesale vale considering that in 1905 the Technological Museum in Sydney paid £0/2/6 for a single long necklace – more than double. "The wage for unskilled labourers [1907] was set at seven shillings a day (up from six), with an extra allowance for overtime – LINK."

By any measure the industry could not be regarded as lucrative based on these numbers. At the same time given Tasmania's and Hobart's population at the time it does not appear to be insubstantial. It now seems that a great many shell necklaces were being produced in Tasmania as a part of this industry that relatively little is known about.

Tasmanian Aboriginal Shell Necklaces Win Icon Status inTasmania

CLICK ON THE IMAGE TO ENLARGE

What's in it for anyone if something is dubbed an "icon"? It seems that the National Trust thinks that there is something in it for them, and maybe so. The long and short of this kind of thing is that there is some kind of marketing imperative involved. That's alright so far as that goes but when you look at the list and read the rhetoric that comes with the announcement of such things there has to be a tinge of doubt about the sentiments that may be found lurking around somewhere.

Among the disparate mix of 2009's Tasmanian Heritage Icons there are the "shell necklaces made by Indigenous Tasmanians". In wording the nomination like this there seems to be an acknowledgement that there has long been some unarticulated background knowledge that not all shell necklaces made in Tasmania had or have Aboriginal authenticity.

It could be difficult working out whether or not you are looking at "an icon." Well not really if the there is no clear provenance or certificate of authenticity it seems that the safest thing to do is assume that it doesn't have the credibility that would enable it to be a 'Tasmania Heritage Icon.'

For contemporary work this is something that can be arranged relatively easily but it gets to be whole lot more complex when it comes to Antique & Vintage examples.

NEWS LINKS

• [1 – Mercury H'bt 12.11.09 – Bread, honey icon aim]
• [2 – ABC: 9.11.09 – Tasmanian 'icons' recognised]
  
• [3– Advocate – 9.11.09 Cradle Mountain is `choice' with kids]
• [4 _ ABC: 09.11.09 - Icons Listed ]

FOUND IN TASMANIA: Bertie May Necklaces With Provenance

This necklace comes with a clear provenance plus first hand information and observations. The owner received it as a gift from Bertie May in Hobart in the 1950s. As a young girl she was enlisted to help her grandmother string such necklaces. Her grandmother lived outside Hobart and the owner reports that:

• Her grandmother strung rainbow kelp shell necklaces for Bertie May to supplement the family's income;

• Bertie May regularly supplied her grandmother with relatively large quantities of shells in plastic bags;

• Approximately every two weeks her grandmother would deliver her latest batch of strung necklaces to an address in Macquarie St. Hobart and on school holidays she would go with her to his house/warehouse – it seems that he only sold his products wholesale;

• She recalls that her grandmother was paid one shilling and sixpence for short necklaces and two shillings and sixpence for long necklaces.

This necklace comes from another source in Tasmania and with a clear provenance plus first hand information and observations. The owner received it as a gift from an Uncle by marriage who was a farmer on the Tasman Peninsular in the 1940s-1950s and who collected shells for Bertie May to supplement his farm income.

As a young woman she moved to 'The Peninsular' to farm with her husband and Uncle. Her Uncle gave her this necklace along with others he acquired from Bertie May and made with shells he had harvested for him. The Uncle's shell harvesting technique is a matter of family history and the story goes that he:

• Collected 'Rainbow Kelp' shells (maireener shells) – Phasianotrochus irisodontes – IMAGE BACK LINK – for his Hobart based Tasmanian souvenir manufacturing and wholesaling enterprise.
  
• Had a flat bottomed boat from which he cut kelp from the kelp beds relatively close to the shore;
• Lay the kelp out on the beach in the sun on a canvas(?) to dry thus collecting the shells that dropped from the weed as they died;
• Gathered the shells together and stored where the blowflies were allowed to lay their eggs on the decaying fish;
• Allowed the blowfly's maggots to eat out the shellfish thus 'cleaning' them ready for further treatment;
• Was paid ten shillings a quart (0.95 Litres) of shells, circa 1947, by Bertie May – a 1918 report by Earnest Mawle in the "The Australian Zoologist" – Vol 1 Part 6 Nov. 1918 – on this industry indicated that "a collector can obtain nine quarts of shells per day."
  

CLICK ON THE IMAGE TO ENLARGE

IMAGE & DATA LINK: Shells Used in Contemporary Aboriginal necklace Making

Tasmanian Shell Necklaces in Paris 1855

Hobart Mercury Tuesday 24 July 1855 NB: Text digitally recovered and only partly corrected
TASMANIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO PARIS 1855 Nor. I.

UNLIKE: the Sydney Catalogue, which comprises the list and description of tho articles, many of which were forwarded for local exhibition only, and not for transmission to Paris, -and hence the difficulty of instituting a fair comparison,-tho Tasmanian Catalogue only embraces the contributions of products which were actually forwarded to the Exposition.... The number of Tasmanian exhibitors was 90, and the various pioduct* transmitted, according to the gioup and class arrangements,were as follows :1st Group, Class I.-Mining and Metallurgical Products. " - Cla« TI,-ivory thing relatingtothe Management of Trees, to Hunting, Shooting, and Products obtained without cultivation-Mineral.Vegetable.'Amina!, Agriculture. VI.-Machinery and Apparatus for Work- shops." X.-Chemical Manipulalotions, Dyeing and Printing, Paper, Leather, Skins, India Rubber, &c.
1st Group, Class II.-'Preparation and preservation of Alimentary Substances.
Class X11.-Hygiene,Pliai niacy,Surgery, and Medicine.
Class XVI.-Works in Metal.
Class X VII-Goldsmitli'sWork,Jewellery, &c.
Class XX.-Woollen & WorstedManufactures.
Class XXII.-Flax and Hemp'Manufactures.
Class XXIII.-Mercery, Hosiery, Carpets, Embroidery, &c. &e.
7th Group, Class XXIV.-Pioiiitcts of Industry, - Industry applied to Furniture and Decollations,
1st Group, Class XXVI.-Drawing andModelling, Letterpress and Copper plate Printing ana Photography.
Class XXVIII.-Painting, Engraving, ami Lithography.
And a few Miscellaneous Articles, consisting^ of a bundle of broad paling, contributed by Mr. John Abbott, six billiard CUPS by Sir William Denison, a churn of Huon Pine and Wattlewood by Mr. T. I, .fennings, five brushes of Colonial Manufacture by the Executive Committee, and eight necklaces of shell, prepared and worn by the Aborigines of Tasmania, as ornaments round their neck U""A e"pT6poVlí"a,tutting opportunities to wade through the Catalogue, and in a succession of notices to bring these contr¡butions under the attention of our readers, as a nieass of directing their enterprise to the successful prosecution of their duty in developing the resources of the colony,

Butterfield Shells Identified

CLICK ON THE IMAGE TO ENLARGE

ZOOLOGY OPINION: [The necklace shells] "are definitely not maireeners ... they are mostly a combination of the mud creeper Batillariidae Batillariella estuarina, which are plentiful on mudflats and have been used by the Tasmanian Aboriginal women in necklaces. They appear to be this species by the narrow length, obvious sutures between whorls, and the fact that many seem to have broken sides on their whorls, which is a common occurrence in this species when one finds them dead on the mudflats, though this could have happened while stringing or handling over time. The species used to be called Eubittium lawleyianum and was placed in the Cerithiidae family. More or less alternate specimens in the necklace seem to be wider and have less obvious sutures. They may be Rissoidae Rissoina variegata or, more likely, juvenile Cerithiidae Cacozeliana granaria. I would be able to be more certain if I could see their apertures, but this is not the case.

There is no probably no way of knowing if this necklace was made by A. Butterfield or one of the Aboriginal women. One thing that makes me wonder if it is the former is because the contemporary makers only use live shells, and women 100 years ago possibly would not have used damaged specimens either. Of course, wear and tear since may have caused the broken whorls. There seems to be less damage with the wider species which would be consistent with C. granaria as this species has a thicker shell than B. estuarina."

L Turner – TMAG

CALL FOR INFORMATION – Tasmanian Shell Necklaces

SNRN (Shell Necklace Research Network) is seeking information from within the Tasmanian community and further afield in regard to:

1. Any information at all in regard to 19th Century colonial and early 20th Century shell necklace making in Tasmania;

2. To complement the information available in regard to ABORIGINAL makers, the SNRN is looking for information about NON-ABORIGINAL makers in Tasmania such as:

• Arthur Robert Butterfield – watchmaker, jeweller and optician at 51 Elizabeth Street, Hobart circa 1898 – click here for more information;
  
• Mrs Mary Maria Martin (MM The Senior & nee Alexander of L’ton) and specifically information about her Factory(?) at 65 Cascade Road, Hobart – 1875 … shop(?) at 75 Collins Street Hobart from about 1906 until 1908 – her husband Thomas Daniel was reported ass being a tanner? ... M M Martin (MM The Senior) died 1924 aged 79
• Frederick Charles Martin (MM’s son) who it seems ran a branch factory in Honolulu, Hawaii – dates unknown;
• J J Martin (Joseph John & MM’s son) was a jeweller at 83 Collins Street Hobart and possibly in Zeehan at sometime;
• 'Bertie' J May, travel goods and souvenir manufacturer (jewellery & shell necklaces?) – Hobart cica 1946, 1948
• Mary May Martin (MM The Younger) and Ellen Martin who in 1927 were trading as M M Martin & Co, shell manufacturers – Mary May Martin (MM The Younger) died – 13 Nov. 1933, aged 51 – Ellen Ida Martin died in August 1969 and seems Ida had continued to trade until 1948 and possibly into the 1950s;
• Miss Stewart who had a jewellery shop on Brisbane St. in Launceston and it seems she traded in shell necklaces into the 1950s along with other businesses on or near Brisbane St.
  

3. To identifying collectors and collections of shell necklaces in Tasmania and elsewhere outside the TMAG, QVMAG and other public collections throughout Australia.

Very little is known about the people making shell necklaces in Tasmania in the 19th C and early 20th C and less is known about their necklace making. However, it seems that given the scale of production that these makers seemed to be involved in, Tasmanian shell necklaces coming to light at auctions, estate clearances and more recently on eBAY, are quite likely to have been made by a non-Aboriginal maker – 1880 – 1950s(?).

Interesting Information:

• It seems that shell necklaces made in Tasmania/Hobart were marketed internationally(?) as “Hobart Necklaces” – possibly this was the basis of ‘The Martin Family’s enterprise??
• The ‘maireneer’ shells (misunderstood as mariner of seaman connections) are being described as that on eBay currently and somewhat surprisingly. They have been known as that in the wider Tasmanian community for about 10 years but not so widely. However, it is a word that has never lost its currency in the Aboriginal community;
  
• It seems that some people in Tasmania made shell necklaces on their "summer holidays at the coast on wet and windy days” in the 1950s and conceivably before that too – and maybe since?
• Shell necklaces are quintessential exemplars of ‘TASMANIANA’ along with Huon Pine, Tasmanian Tigers, etc.
• It was thought that Tasmaniana included “apple seed necklaces” (some even considered the possibility of Aboriginal people making them) BUT it turns out that there are NO APPLE SEED NECKLACES, rather they are IPIL SEED ( the seed of a kind of tropical acacia) necklaces and made in the Philippines – many of which were imported into Tasmania as “hippy beads” (?) in the 1970s. ... click here for more information
  

Any information confirming information above OR information to the contrary would be welcomed by the network.

CLICK ON THE IMAGE TO ENLARGE

Contact information – eMail: shellnecklaces@7250.net

Maireener Shells

CLICK ON THE IMAGE TO, ENLARGE

USA SELLER'S NOTES: [She has had 10 shell necklaces] .... "all were maireener shells and I think ... to be very clear about how I came to posses so many is, I go through hundreds of pieces of jewelry every week which boils down to thousands of pieces a month so considering I have so much and it took me almost 10 years to acquire the ones I had makes them extremely scarce. I found one in a second hand store, two at local antique vendor sales, one at an auction and the rest were from various estate sales. Most of the people selling them here have no idea what they are just as I didn't. Not all the necklaces were exactly the same, some of the shells were an opalescent white color and one had a very light red or pink tint but all the rest were more of a green. The lengths were different as well, some were very long over 60" and some were much shorter. Not all were purchased by [the Tasmanian buyer], she bought 3 of them. Some of the others were sold to Australian buyers and the rest stayed here in the states."

The shells that the seller says were "light red or pink tint" may have been necklaces originating from 'The Martins' – either direct from Hobart or via Honolulu – or another maker of 'Hobart Necklaces' and dyed with aniline dye – click here – NB: More distinctly dyed examples exist in a Tasmanian collection.

Also, Aboriginal makers' use of dyes at a similar time to the Martins et al – Butterfield? – click here – cannot be discounted.

Somewhat curiously "maireener" – albeit spelt variously but not usually 'marina' – has entered the eBay lexicon to describe these shells no matter where they are in the world. Sellers are typically researching on the internet it seems and picking up Tasmanian site and site where contemporary Aboriginal makers are selling their necklaces.

M M Martin Shell Necklace Enterprise Hobart Tasmania

CLICK ON THE IMAGE TO ENLARGEThis house was The Midwoods with the Midwoods Distillery of 1822 to the lower right. Later it became the Dynnyrne Distillery owner by Robert Lathrop Murray. In the 1840s the complex was rented to the government and it became the Female Factory Nursery. In 1876 the property came into the possession of the Martins. The factory chimney to the rear is that of the Hobart Town Woollen Mill c. 1874. The house and most of the distillery were demolished in 1968. The Woollen Mills having been for many years "Flock" Mills were destroyed in the Hobart bushfires of February 1967 .

INFORMATION SOURCE: Tony Rayner, Historian Hobart - August 2009

CLICK ON THE IMAGE TO ENLARGE

Images courtesy of David Martin, Mary Martin's great grandson

CLICK ON THE IMAGE TO ENLARGE

Tasmanian Shell Necklaces

Please click on the image to enlarge

Shell Necklace: Dyed Kelp Shells:Cantharidus irisodontes
Necklace length 168 cms

IMAGE SOURCE: Bett Gallery
369 Elizabeth St. North Hobart TAS 7000
Website: www.bettgallery.com.au

NOTE: I seems that many of the Martin family's necklaces – 'Hobart Necklaces' – were dyed with aniline dyes in various colours nevertheless not all would have been. While many necklaces produced in Tasmania have ambiguous provenance there is increasing evidence to suggest that a great many may not have been made by Aboriginal makers. Indeed, given the number of years the Martin family were involved in necklace making, it is likely that a great many shell necklaces originating in Tasmania, and without clear Aboriginal provenance, may well have been made by a member of the Martin family or Bertie J May sometime between the early 1900 until the 1950s and perhaps beyond.

All would qualify as being ‘Tasmaniana’ but it is likely that a great many are not of Aboriginal origin.

The following information has been supplied by the reference library in Launceston in regard to the manufacture of shell necklaces by non Aboriginal people in Tasmania:

• Arthur Robert Butterfield (born 22 Feb 1867) was a watchmaker, jeweller and optician at 51 Elizabeth Street, Hobart. His private residence was Mortimer Avenue, New Town.
• Bertie J May was a travel goods and souvenir manufacturer – Source Wise’s Post Office Directory 1946, 1948
• Frederick Martin and his wife Mary are listed in the Tasmanian Electoral Rolls 1914 and 1917 as shell necklace makers.
• An article by E. Mawle “Notes on kelp shell Cantharidus irisodontes” in Australian Zoologist Vol 1, no. 6, 1918 p 161-162., describes the harvesting of kelp shells by non-Aboriginal people to make necklaces and hatpins in 1918, – Source Keeping Culture: Aboriginal Tasmania

The following information has also been provided by Marion Sargent, Reference Librarian, Launceston Library, LAUNCESTON, TAS. 7250 – Email: Launceston.Reference@education.tas.gov.au

M M Martin, shell necklace manufacturers:

• It appears that Mrs Mary Maria Martin had the business at 75 Collins Street from about 1906 until 1908.
  
• The Post Office Directories for 1906 and 1907 each have an advertisement for M M Martin Wholesale Shell Necklace Manufacturer, established in 1875.
  
• They had a factory at Cascade Road, Hobart, and a branch factory in Honolulu, Hawaii, which appears to have been run by a son, Frederick Charles Martin (born 1877).
• Thomas and M M Martin were previously listed as fruit growers at Cascade Road (1904-1906).
• From 1909 to 1914 the business was located at 83 Collins Street.
  
• J J Martin was a jeweller at the same address. This was Joseph John Martin.
  
• In the 1903 Electoral Roll he was a jeweller and was living at Cascade Road with many other Martin family members.
  
• In 1915 George Sly had a boot shop there.
• It is thought that the shell business either slowed down or closed during the First World War, as there are no more entries in the Post Office Directories until 1921 to 1923. During that time the business of shell ornament manufacturers was located at 67 Cascade Road, also the private residence of the Martin family.
  
• Mary’s husband Thomas Daniel Martin died aged 80 on 6 January 1923.
  
• The property at Cascade Road appears to have been sold, and Mary and her daughters, Mary May (born 1881) and Ellen Ida Martin (born 1886), moved to 25 Weld Street, Hobart.
• Mary Maria Martin (nee Alexander) died aged 79 on 9 July 1924.
  
• By 1927 her two daughters, Mary May and Ellen, had moved to 12 View Street, Sandy Bay, where the business was carried on under the name of M M Martin & Co, shell manufacturers.
  
• Mary May Martin died on 13 November 1933, aged 51.
  
• Ellen Martin continued with the business until at least 1948, when the last Post Office Directory was published.
  
• Frederick Charles Martin died at 12 View Street in September 1948.
  
• Ellen is not listed in the 1950s phone books. Ellen Ida Martin died in August 1969; she had been living with her nephew Mr J Martin at Blackman’s Bay. – Source: Launceston Library, Civic Square, LAUNCESTON TAS 7250 – 04.08.09

Research

• Marion Sargent: Research Librarian, Launceston Library
• Ray Norman: Research Associate – CAIA Website
  
• Dick Bett : Bett Gallery, 369 Elizabeth St. North Hobart TAS 7000 Gallery Website
  

HOBART NECKLACES

CLICK ON THE IMAGE TO ENLARGE

The text in the photograph reads

"SOUVENIRS OF TASMANIA
DESIGNED AND MANUFACTURED
BY A. BUTTERFIELD
VISITORS SPECIALITIES
TAS PHOTO CHARMS (Gold Mounted)
SHELL SPOONS (Sil Mounted)
SHELL SUGAR TONGS (Sil Mounted)
CAPE CLASPS (Sil Mounted)
SHELL BROACHES (Gold or Sil Mounted)
SHELL LINKS (Gold or Sil Mounted)
SHELL BREAST PINS, SHELL HAT PINS
SHELL NECKLETS, TAS WOOD STICKS

JUST A LITTLE TRIFLE TO KEEP THE MEMORY GREEN"

and it indicates that Butterfield had made the shell necklace depicted.The Tasmanian State Archives has this photograph in its collection. It is dated Circa 1898 and it depicts a display of Tasmanian "souvenirs designed and made" by a Mr A. Butterfield. It is significant that the image is framed by a necklace of the kind worn by Truganini and Fanny Cochrane Smith in period photographs of them.

It may well be a photographic record of what have become known as "Hobart Necklaces" made by non-Aboriginal makers in Tasmania by A Butterfield and more than probably others as well.

A variety of souvenirs, many incorporating shells, are included in the display but the central card bearing the text makes no reference to the Tasmanian Aboriginal people or their culture. They are, however, appropriated as icons of 'Tasmanian-ness'. The photographic images of Truganini and William Lanne, is of some interest.

In claiming to have designed and manufactured the 'necklace', Butterfield was clearly exploiting the curiosity value of the shells, their connection to Tasmanian Aboriginal culture and their Tasmanian-ness. In linking this Tasmanian-ness to the Tasmanian Aboriginal people and their cultural products he was reassigning its meaning and placing it in a colonial context. The other work that Butterfield depicts in the photograph point to the curio value of the necklace and this to some extent depends upon its Tasmanian Aboriginal connections and Tasmanian colonial associations—a kind of exotic otherness.

This 1898 'Butterfield' photograph seems to suggest that for over a century shell necklaces have had currency as souvenirs of Tasmania in the European population. George Augustus Robinson's reference to the making of shell necklaces being a 'cottage industry' in 1836 suggests that they were seen by the colonists as being in some way 'valuable' quite early on. There are also reports from the 1940s of a minister of religion on Cape Barren Island buying the 'mairreeners', presumably for resale on the Tasmanian mainland or for some other purpose.

Any additional information about this photograph or non-Aboriginal shell necklace makers of any kind would be welcomed by the research network. Email any information to shellnecklaces@7250.net

NETWORKER'S NOTE: A member of the network has told us of a jewellery shop in Hobart on Liverpool St. that seems may have some connection with the name "Butterfield". A Mr. Butterfield worked there in the 1970s. We are wondering if this may have even been the bussiness related to the photograpph above.